Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare a human second reader with computer-aided detection (CAD) for the reduction of false-negative cases by a primary radiologist. We retrospectively reviewed our clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We found that 6,381 consecutive screening mammograms were interpreted by a primary reader. This radiologist then reinterpreted the studies using CAD ("CAD reader"). A second human reader who was blinded to the CAD results but knowledgeable of the primary reader's findings reviewed the studies, looking for abnormalities not seen by the first reader. RESULTS: Two cancers were called back by the second human reader that were not called back by the CAD reader; however, the CAD system had marked the findings, but they were dismissed by the primary reader. Because of the small numbers, the difference between the CAD and second human reader was not statistically significant. The CAD and human second readers increased the recall rates 6.4% and 7.2% (p = 0.70), respectively, and the biopsy rates 10% and 14.7%. The positive predictive value was 0% (0/3) for the CAD reader and was 40% (2/5) for the human second reader. The relative increases in the cancer detection rate compared with the primary reader's detection rate were 0% for the CAD reader and 15.4% (2/13) for the human second reader (p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: A human second reader or the use of a CAD system can increase the cancer detection rate, but we found no statistical difference between the two because of the small sample size. A possible benefit from a human second reader is that CAD systems can only point to possible abnormalities, whereas a human must determine the significance of the finding. Having two humans review a study may increase detection rates due to interpreter--hence, perceptual--variability and not just increased detection.

Radiological reasoning: male breast mass with calcifications.

OBJECTIVE: We encountered a mammographically calcified breast mass in a 30-year-old man. It was initially thought to be comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ because of the dense calcifications, but sonography and MRI suggested a highly vascular lesion. The final pathologic diagnosis was hemangioma. CONCLUSION: Vascular tumors of the breast occur infrequently and are even more rare in males. The clinical and radiologic diagnosis of breast hemangioma is often difficult, but different imaging techniques, when used together, can provide important information for differential diagnosis and management. A biopsy is required.

Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review.

PURPOSE: To determine the number of patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer after having an area of clinical concern at presentation and combined negative mammographic and ultrasonographic (US) findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 4-year period, 829 patients with a palpable abnormality at presentation and combined negative mammographic and US findings were identified. The number of women who went on to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer was determined retrospectively. The authors searched the breast imaging database and the pathology database, sent a contact letter to the referring physicians, and linked their data to the State Cancer Registry. They also analyzed the breast parenchymal density among all patients who had more than 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 829 women, 374 had follow-up information. Two-hundred thirty-three patients had negative imaging findings with more than 2 years of follow-up. The other 141 women were presumed to be cancer free, as they were not identified by the State Cancer Registry. Six (2.6%) of the 233 women had a diagnosis of breast cancer in the area of the palpable abnormality. The six cancers were diagnosed among the 156 women who had radiographically dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 or 4). Among the 77 women with predominantly fatty tissues, no cancers were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: A negative mammographic and US finding of a palpable abnormality does not exclude breast cancer, but the likelihood of breast cancer is low, approximately 2.6%-2.7%. It may be higher if the breast tissues are dense and lower if they are predominantly fatty.